English

Legal Principle: When There is an Infringement of the Legal Right of a Person, He Gets a Right to Sue the Wrongdoer for Remedy Irrespective of Any Actual

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.

Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Options

  • Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting

  • Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.

  • Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.

  • This principle is not at all applicable in this case.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting

Explanation:

Infringement. The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark. Right endowed upon by law is called legal right. We all have rights and at the same time, we need to ensure that we do not take away or violate someone else's rights. This is our legal duty. When we fail to perform or incorrectly perform our legal duties, we end up violating someone else's rights and in turn commit a  tort. Thus in the case presented before us Saroj's right to vote was infringed and whether or not any damage was caused still she has the right to sue the wrongdoer.   
Hence "Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting" is correct.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.  

Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will 


Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.

Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.


Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option

Principle: Assault is causing bodily injury to another person by use of physical force.

Facts: Rustum while entering into compartment of a train raised his fist in anger towards a person Sheetal, just in front of him in the row, to get way to enter into the train first, but did not hit him. Rustum has:


Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission


Mark the best option:
Principle: A person, who provides his services to another, needs to be paid for the same. In case he is not paid, he needs to become compensated by the person who availed his services.
Facts: Jack went to the restaurant to have dinner. After having a good meal he realized he didn't have enough money to pay for the bill. He told the manager of the restaurant about the problem. The manager asked him to give his watch and his Parker pen in lieu of the money for the bill. Is Jack liable to give his watch and pen instead of the money?


In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?


Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.

Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters, was playing near the pumphouse. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.


Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.

Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
The standard of care generally used in cases of negligence is the


Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles: A private nuisance may consist of:

1. Any interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land.

2. The act of wrongfully causing or allowing the escape of deleterious things into another person’s land e.g. water, smoke, smell etc.

Factual situation: D erected a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of P, a medical practitioner. The dust from the machine polluted the atmosphere and caused inconvenience to P and his patients. Here DECISION:


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×